25 March 2002.
Proposed agenda and related documents http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20020322.NCteleconf-agenda.html
List of attendees:
Peter de Blanc ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Oscar Robles or Elisabeth Porteneuve Elisabeth Porteneuve ccTLD Oscar Robles Garay ccTLD absent, apologies, proxy to Peter de Blanc or Elisabeth Porteneuve Philip Sheppard Business Marilyn Cade Business Grant Forsyth Business Greg Ruth ISPCP absent, apologies Antonio Harris ISPCP Tony Holmes ISPCP Philipp Grabensee Registrars absent, apologies Ken Stubbs Registrars Bruce Tonkin Registrars Roger Cochetti gTLD Richard Tindal gTLD absent, apologies, proxy given to R.Cochetti Cary Karp gTLD absent, apologies, Ellen Shankman IP Laurence Djolakian IP J. Scott Evans IP Harold Feld NCDNH Chun Eung Hwi NCDNH Erick Iriate NCDNH 14 Names Council Members Jeff Neuman invited to represent gTLDs in the absence of NC members Rita Rodin invited to represent gTLDs in the absence of NC members Thomas Roessler invited as GA Chair Glen de Saint Géry NC Secretary Philippe Renaut MP3 Recording Engineer/Secretariat
Due to a technical failure there was no MP3 recording
Quorum present at 15:10 (all times reported are CET, which is UTC +1:00 during the winter in the Northern hemisphere).
Philip Sheppard chaired this NC teleconference.
Approval of the Agenda
Philip Sheppard said that the purpose of the meeting was a discussion but that a vote might be needed to pass revisions to the Terms of Reference.
Agenda item 1. Agreement to revised Terms of Reference for DNSO response
to the case for Reform
Suggested amendments on line that had been proposed for adoption by the Chair prior to the meeting and circulated as version3:
Tony Holmes: Under section 2 Advisory Bodies, there should be a separation of DNSO, ASO, and PSO.
Chun: Explicit mention of At-Large in the sub-title to section 5 (Board composition). In addition it was agreed in the meeting to add At-large as a bullet point under section 4 (Stakeholder participation).
The structure of the report was discussed and it was agreed that:
The frame work for the report should be:
GA: Ken Stubbs: Important for the GA to give an idea of what their propositions will be.
Ph. Sheppard introduced the subject by saying that three questions circulated in advance were based on work already done which can be found in Stuart Lynn's statement on 10 March describing ICANN's functions in the Mission Statement.
Q. 1. Do we agree with this posted list of ICANN's functions?
Oscar Robles had answered on line the question : "Do we agree with the posted list of ICANN's functions?". He agreed in broad terms with the list as a recollection of tasks ICANN conduct in a day to day basis, but not as principles. He also believed there were specific areas where more resources were needed such as root servers and ccTLDs.
Operational functions of ICANN
Jeff Neuman said that in the list of functions stated, not one is really inherent to ICANN, there is nothing in the White Paper that gives ICANN those functions, and there is nothing to prevent the functions being contracted out to other entities.
- certain functions do not belong to ICANN such as issues pertaining to transfers.
- ICANN is confined to technical functions, if it were not limited in scope it would have to include consumer protection.
- it was felt that the contracts between Registrars and Registries specify transfer policies so there is already the notion of some consumer protection policy in these contracts.
- ICANN's role is to produce competition and as such regulate consumer protection.
Elisabeth Porteneuve for the ccTLDs said that in 3 years only two service contracts were signed with ccTLDs and nothing has been done about the root servers in terms of contracts or distribution which is inadequate. Understand the reason and ask why nothing has been done. Bodies in place are perhaps insufficient to deal with the problem.
General operational functions should be defined and how they relate to the working of the ASO.
Bruce Tonkin insisted that the core mission is in management of names hierarchy and IP addresses. Too much emphasis is put on something that is not related.
There was the concern expressed that the discussion was getting caught up in functions rather than looking for ways to find a creative environment that would allow ICANN to operate more efficiently.
-Boundaries should be placed on where ICANN can go.
Ellen Shankman, J. Scott Evans and Laurence Djolakian said that IP is a core function mentioned in the White Paper and has driven ICANN to be more intrusive in policy goals. I discussion the following points were made:
- Concern that supervising the administration of the UDRP policy is a too thin version of IP.
- Opposition views that beyond the UDRP, ICANN would enter a jurisdiction over which it did not possess the necessary expertise.
- IP implications in coordinating functions and processes within the organisation where laws that exist can be applied by IP owners to protect their rights.
Marilyn Cade recalled that the White Paper was the result of international consultation, was a broad hammered out set of documents leading to the MOU with ICANN. If ICANN was not there the contract would go back to the Department of Commerce.
IANA database up date concerning ccTLDs needs to be done carefully as there is no procedure and individual relationships of each ccTLD with ICANN is impossible.
Q. 2 Do we want to delete anything
from the list?
Rita Rodin: the gTLD constituency had been looking at a thinner management model for ICANN.
To do this the following functions could be removed:
- certain administrative and policy functions relating to gTLD business
- consumer protection
- creation of infrastructure for at-large membership.
In response to this, concern was expressed by Tony Harris and Marilyn Cade as to who would take on the tasks taken away from ICANN.
It was unclear what consumer protection could be taken away from ICANN's existing functions unless this meant changing existing registry or registrar contracts.
Priorities and a thinner ICANN
It was noticed that most constituencies prioritise functions for ICANN they think are important. If there is any proposal for a thinner ICANN, then each constituency will need to examine what it is prepared to see ICANN no longer doing in order to maintain these priorities.
There were no universally agreed functions that should be deleted. There were areas where the potential for mission creep was higher and the following were suggested: security, consumer protection and the creation of infrastructure for at-large membership.
Q. 3 Do we want to add anything to the list?
There were no proposals although there were supporters of some of the existing functions being done better or having more resources given to them: - ccTLD administrative functions - root server administration - Registry and Registrar contract enforcement with respect to intellectual property and other existing conditions.
Some NC members proposed that separation of technical and policy activities would help increase ICANN efficiency and help with bottlenecks caused by the existing staff hierarchy. If this happened there would need to be an assessment if another entity or ICANN sub-division were capable of doing the work and to ensure that there was legitimacy to the delegation.
Constituencies were encouraged to continue this discussion by e-mail to the NC list. In the meantime the Chair will circulate the list with provisional conclusions based on the above discussions.
The teleconference ended at 17:10
Next NC teleconference will be held on Thursday 4 April at 15:00 Paris time, UTC 14:00 and focus on Financing ICANN.
||© DNSO Names Council